Murkanen:Except the law isn't being applied equally. On one hand you have the fact that men can not marry men (which women can do) and women can not marry women (which men can do), and on the other you have the government arbitrarily allowing heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice while not permitting homosexuals to do the same.

The law says that ANY one man can marry ANY one woman.

That is COMPLETELY "equal".

It doesn't say that ANYONE can marry ANYONE.

1. As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".

The Amendment say that the LAW must be applied EQUALLY.

And so you think that not only should a man be able to marry a man but ANYONE should be able to marry AS MANY other people that they want?

Do you think there is ANY group that should NOT be covered by marriage?

And before that it said any black man can marry any black woman, and before that it said that only white men and women could marry. Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean the law is covering the populace equally, which is what the 14th amendment requires.

And so you think that not only should a man be able to marry a man but ANYONE should be able to marry AS MANY other people that they want?

It isn't my place to decide whose relationship is more moral/correct than anothers. If the people involved are happy, then yes they should be able to marry as long as the people involved are able to legally consent to the union.

Do you think there is ANY group that should NOT be covered by marriage?

People who can not be expected to give informed consent to marry, ie the mentally handicapped, children, and animals (I normally wouldn't include the last two, but you're one of those "pedophilia is equivalent to homosexuality" whackaloons so I thought I'd add them just to be safe).

Earlier I brought up some other groups that might want to marry....

[insert list of incest combinations here]

It's. Not. My. Business. Who. Gets. Married. Or. Why.

If any of the above are able to give informed consent, without it being the result of conditioning (as can be the case in situations where trust in an authority figure is prevalent) then no I don't care if they marry.

dottedmint:As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".

Your equation is still abusrd, even more so in fact. If X is the act, the law does not apply to the "act" it applies to PEOPLE that it is restricting. What people can and cannot is the question of the equal protection clause. My equation, which was the correct one, was conveniently overlooked by you.

The amendment ONLY ensures the "equal protection of the laws". Not the 'ACT'

How difficult is it for you to see that the act of marriage between a man and a woman RESTRICTS THE RIGHTS OF A CERTAIN CLASS OF PEOPLE and not the others. THIS IS EQUAL PROTECTION. It looks to PEOPLE. Wiki it. Google it. Do some research since you obviously won't take the word of the six or so other people on here, some of whom have given you the courtesy of actually LINKING CASES ABOUT WHY YOU ARE WRONG which you refuse to read.

Take this example: if a law says that a CONTRACT is only valid between a man and a woman, according to you there is no equal protection violation, because any man can make a contract with any woman. No men can make contracts together, but this is irrelevant to you because "the law applies equally." So would such a law be constitutional?

If, as Plaintiffs' urge, the Legislature is powerless to grant those rights embodied in AB 25 and AB 205 without returning to the voters for approval, Proposition 22 would likely violate Article 1 sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution because it would deprive to a class of citizens rights, privileges and immunities accorded another class of citizens solely on the ground of gender and/or sexual orientation. Such a result is constitutionally impermissible. Gay Law Students Assn v. Pacific Telephone (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 156 Cal.Rptr. 14, 595 P.2d 592 (Equal Protection Clause contained in California Constitution bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation).

Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.:

we begin from the premise that both the state and federal equal protection clauses clearly prohibit The state or any governmental entity from arbitrarily discriminating against any class of individuals in employment decisions. (See, e. g., Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California (1969) 71 Cal.2d 566, 578, 79 Cal.Rptr. 77, 456 P.2d 645; Kotch v. Pilot Comm'rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556, 67 S.Ct. 910, 91 L.Ed. 1093.) Moreover, past decisions of this court establish that this general constitutional principle applies to homosexuals

Murkanen:And before that it said any black man can marry any black woman, and before that it said that only white men and women could marry. Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean the law is covering the populace equally, which is what the 14th amendment requires.

HUGE difference here.

A law that says a white man can marry a white woman but a black man can't marry a white woman does NOT provide "equal protection".

IF a white man can marry a white woman than (to be equal) a black man also needs to be able to marry a white woman.

Saying that ANY man can marry ANY woman does not violate the 14TH.

IF the law was written somehow that defined marriage as a union between two people who love each other then gay marriage would be allowed under that law.

But most states define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

IF ANY man (gay, bi, or whatever) wants to form a union with ANY woman he is allowed to.

The law does NOT prevent him from doing that.

(I normally wouldn't include the last two, but you're one of those "pedophilia is equivalent to homosexuality" whackaloons so I thought I'd add them just to be safe)

I'v never said that pedophilia is "equivalent" to homosexuality.

I was told that gays are "hardwired" into being what they are.

There is strong evidence that pedophiles are also "hardwired" into being what they are.

And since you seem to think that ANYONE can marry AS MANY other people that they want I'm curious if you feel employers should be required to provide insurance to all those "spouses".

Is there any limit to how many????

One man married to 50 men and 50 women????

Then of course each of them could also be married to others as well and so on and so forth......

For some reason I doubt that my employer would want to have to cover 100 of my "spouses".....and what???? 100 kids????

Would you be one of the first ones to complain if employers no longer provided family/spouse coverage for insurance?

C SYour equation is still abusrd, even more so in fact. If X is the act, the law does not apply to the "act" it applies to PEOPLE that it is restricting. What people can and cannot is the question of the equal protection clause. My equation, which was the correct one, was conveniently overlooked by you.

The "act" is what the law allows people to do.

ANY one man marry ANY one woman.....

And the EPC is NOT about what people can or cannot do.

IT is ONLY about having the law be the same for EVERYONE.

And when it says ANY man can marry ANY woman it is the SAME.

It calls for the "equal protection of the laws".

NOT everyone can do whatever they want.

IF the law says I can only drive 55 down the highway but I want to drive 90 I cannot legally drive 90 down the highway.

THE LAW says that I can only marry someone who is the opposite gender from me.

'but I want to marry someone the same gender'

THE LAW when applied EQUALLY says that I can ONLY marry someone of a different gender from me.

It doesn't matter what I WANT to do.

The law only says what I CAN do.

How difficult is it for you to see that the act of marriage between a man and a woman RESTRICTS THE RIGHTS OF A CERTAIN CLASS OF PEOPLE and not the others.

NOT under the LAW.

And that is what the EPC is about.

"equal protection of the laws"

A gay man has the 'right' under the LAW to marry ANY woman he wants....just like a straight man does.

Obviously he doesn't want to but that is NOT what the EPC is about.

deprive to a class of citizens rights, privileges and immunities accorded another class of citizens solely on the ground of gender and/or sexual orientation. Such a result is constitutionally impermissible.

IF a gay man had some really good female friend who needed some insurance he could marry her and have her put on his insurance policy. Or it could go the other way around and he could be put under her insurance.

The bottom line is that a gay man can marry a woman. (she could even be gay)

They could both be gay and even have their own partners but they could be married to each other.

both the state and federal equal protection clauses clearly prohibit The state or any governmental entity from arbitrarily discriminating against any class of individuals in employment decisions.

Um..... "in employment decisions"

Not relevent to this issue.

violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Hawaii Constitution a Hawaii statute that denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

That's fine for Hawaii....

IF the supreme courts of other states uphold their marriage laws then what?

Also it might be possible that Hawaii could re-write their statutes in a way that might not violate thier constitution. (I've never read it so who knows)

Ultimately until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue there is going to be debate....and probably even after they make a ruling....

I'm curious how many people in here agree with what Markanen says about ANYONE should be able to marry AS MANY other people as they want. (except children and etc)

IF Mom and Daughter want to get married they should be able to....

IF Mom wants to marry Daughter and 20 other women and 20 other men she should have that right....

Not really no. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is still discrimination, and the government isn't permitted to discriminate against its law abiding citizens.

A law that says a white man can marry a white woman but a black man can't marry a white woman does NOT provide "equal protection".

...and a law that allows a man to marry a woman, but does not allow a woman to marry a woman is gender discrimination, which means it does not provide "equal protection".

IF a white man can marry a white woman than (to be equal) a black man also needs to be able to marry a white woman.

Saying that ANY man can marry ANY woman does not violate the 14TH.

It does when it refuses to permit men to marry men (which women can do) or refuses to permit women to marry women (which men can do). It's gender discrimination and it violates the precedents set down by past Supreme court cases.

IF the law was written somehow that defined marriage as a union between two people who love each other then gay marriage would be allowed under that law.

Loving v. Virginia stated that marriage is a civil right. Civil rights are not to be infringed upon by anyone for any reason short of felony charges, and even then they are restored after a time.

But most states define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Most states also had segragation laws and miscegenation laws before they were struck down by the Supreme Court, but that didn't mean they weren't violating the 14th amendment. Not only that, but they are putting their religious definition of the term where it doesn't belong, government. If they want to keep it so their churches don't recognize it that's fine. There are other churches that will (both Christian and non), but government should not discriminate against any of its citizens.

IF ANY man (gay, bi, or whatever) wants to form a union with ANY woman he is allowed to.

This sort of argument was invalidated thirty years ago in Loving v. Virginia, and it's as morally bankrupt and illogical a statement now as it was back then.

I'v never said that pedophilia is "equivalent" to homsexuality.

Not in that exact phrase, but you have tried to equivocate the two in multiple posts.

I was told that gays are "hardwired" into being what they are.

Yes, and?

There is strong evidence that pedophiles are also "hardwired" into being what they are.

No there isn't. There's a strong connection to it being the result of child molestation at some point in the person's childhood, but nothing like what you see dealing with people who are attracted to post-pubescents.

And since you seem to think that ANYONE can marry AS MANY other people that they want I'm curious if you feel employers should be required to provide insurance to all those "spouses".

Required? No. Would it be nice if they did? Yes.

Is there any limit to how many????

Yes, the number of people you can get to co-marry each other. Good luck with getting it past 4, if even that many.

One man married to 50 men and 50 women????

If through some miracle he managed to get 100 people to all marry each other, then yes. That's about as likely to happen as the FSM coming down and tapping me on the shoulder within the next 5 minutes though, so I'm not worried about it ever reaching such proportions.

Then of course each of them could also be married to others as well and so on and so forth......

If you can get 101 people to agree to adding a new person to your collective marriage then good on you. I however don't think that would even be feasible considering how hard it would be to get 101 people who like each other to agree to the initial marriage in the first place.

For some reason I doubt that my employer would want to have to cover 100 of my "spouses".....and what???? 100 kids????

Then he won't have to. You'll either lose your coverage or you're entire paycheck will wind up being used to cover whatever expenses it can pay for, and the rest will be without.

Would you be one of the first ones to complain if employers no longer provided family/spouse coverage for insurance?

If they did it for modest sized families I'd be a little irked, but it's their company to run as they wish. In my opinion, if they can cover the Clown Car lady and her 20 some odd kids, they can probably handle the 3 20-somethings with no children.

Now if you are finished with the ridiculous slippery slope hypotheticals (zomg what if he married a BILLION pplz!11!!!11), would you mind telling me why you think allowing homosexuals to have equal rights to yourself would be detrimental to either you or the country? I always ask this but all I ever seem to get in response is either a claim that it is unnatural (false) or that it goes against "god" (which shouldn't even enter the equation considering that whole 1st amendment thing).

Um... gee I don't know, maybe it's relevant because IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE. Discrimination based on your sexual orientation is a EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUE. A law treating people differently based on nothing more than their sexual orientation.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

What activity are we talking about here? Marrying the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. A straight person can do that. A gay person cannot. Therefore, a particular class of individuals are being denied the same right straight people enjoy. The right to marry the PERSON of their choice. PERSON. Not PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. There is a DIFFERENCE.

Did you ever consider gay people are incapable of marrying someone of the opposite sex? The same way you are incapable of marrying someone of the same sex? That this isn't even an option for them, the same way marrying someone of the same sex isn't an option for you? Or is that too complicated for you?

Straight people have the right to marry the partner of their choice. Gay people do not have the right to marry the partner of their choice, because that partner is of the same sex. Gay people do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex for the same reason you don't want to marry someone of the same sex. You do not want to have sex with people of the same sex. Gay people do not want to have sex with people of opposite sex.

Would a coloring book explanation make this easier for you? Connect the friggin dots? Cat in the Hat children's book?

Give me one good reason WHY the government should not allow gay people to marry. ONE GOOD NON-RELIGIOUS REASON.

You are suffering from a fundamental lack of understanding of what equal protection means. It means the law will not treat you differently from someone else for no good reason because of some inherent quality of yours.

Ultimately until the USSC makes a ruling on this issue there is going to be debate

What issue? You don't even know what the proper issue is. I already showed you the Hawaii decision which said restricting Gay marriage was an equal protection violation. Hawaii's equal protection clause is the same as the federal one. It's THE SAME THING.

IF a gay man had some really good female friend who needed some insurance he could marry her and have her put on his insurance policy. Or it could go the other way around and he could be put under her insurance.

The bottom line is that a gay man can marry a woman. (she could even be gay)

I think the problem we are having is that you are only looking at it from the angle of race discrimination as opposed to gender discrimination, which is the angle that I am looking at it from.

For example, you used a speeding analogy in one of your posts claiming that since the speed limit is only X MPH, you can't go 90 because its the law. I'd like to take that analogy one step further if you'd permit me to do so.

You have a single stretch of road, but instead of it being strictly one speed for both genders it only permits men to go 25 as opposed to 50. If you got a ticket you'd be able to sue for gender discrimination since women are being allowed special treatment (allowed to go 50mph as opposed to 25) simply because of their sex, and you'd win easily since the law is quite blatent in its favouritism. That is what the marriage law boils down to in my, and others, opinion (at least thats the case most likely to succeed since sexual orientation isn't a protected class under federal law for some reason).

You have men allowed to marry women, but women can not marry women (discrimination favouring men).

You have women allowed to marry men, but men can not marry men (discrimination favouring women).

It isn't the same under state constitutions since most have EPCs of their own, though a number of them have decided to arbitrarily treat sexual orientation as something different from gender or race (Arizona for example).

Personally, I do not think permitting the majority to decide what is permissable under legal equality since it produces situations much like what is happening today in regards to homosexuals, as well as what happened to African Americans and other minorities (Native Americans, the Irish, Catholics, etc) from the founding of the country to about the 1960's. No single group of people should be allowed to determine the rights, or lack there of, of a minority group. If it's a ban for one it should be a ban for all, not just the newest minority whipping post.

Recognizing same sex couples the right to marry falls under the 14th Amendment, and you don't put civil rights to a vote.

All the other confusing stuff is a red herring. I'm with the baby steps scenario. Quite frankly, the other arguments are absurd and no one's bringing up the "right" to polygamy, and the pedophilia/incest comparison is frankly degradingly offensive and has nothing to do with the topic.

Again, the same path trod by those who fought for civil rights for persons of color is practically identical to what homosexuals are doing: striving to define themselves as citizens with the same rights as anyone.

I have an idea which actually touches on a couple of issues: obesity, media influence on body image and corporate reinforcement of particular habits/attitudes/preferences.

The other day I bought a cup of coffee at Starbucks and there was a quote on the side of the cup that blew me away:

"The world would be a boring place if everyone was a size 2. I love being a size 22, just like I love a giant cup of hot chocolate with extra whipped cream. F.A.T (Fabulous and Thick) folks know that it's the extras in life - like pounds, cash and love - that give us the character. Embrace the extras, Baby!"

-- Mo'Nique

I couldn't believe that this was being promoted as the healthy, reasonable reaction to have against the usual ultra thin unrealistic body image that is normally promotted by the media. While walking xylophones are not a healthy realistic body type to promote, neither are obese size 22s.

The obesity problem is so serious that health experts have gone so far as to call it an epidemic in the US. With advertising bombardment for junk food and rediculously huge portions being served at restaurants, it's no wonder.This is a broad issue since it covers health and psycholochology but it also touches on the consequences,benefits/dangers of capitalism. with a profit motive and a society mostly defined by its lowest common denominator is it really realistic to beleive that the free market is enough to counteract institutionalized propaganda that promotes the cheapest least healthy foods and that somehow healthy alternatives will become competitive because people will suddenly start comsuming with their heads instead of their impulses?

Thorndyke Barnhard:This is a broad issue since it covers health and psycholochology but it also touches on the consequences,benefits/dangers of capitalism.

Awareness is one thing. Regulating what kind of food is allowed because people can't eat it responsibly is asinine, un-American and unacceptable. Even good food. But I would say it's up to the restaurant to offer a menu item that caters to nutritional balance, or, even better...you saw it coming...PEOPLE can eat less themselves based on information THEY get and decide to stick to as a regimen.

I can see a dichotomy in the health professions, too. I've heard the point of view that doctors should refuse to treat people who don't take care of themselves, but rather than use their influence as a profession to bolster better personal health choices, the reality is that they still make money off our vices.

- Regulating what kind of food is allowed because people can't eat it responsibly is asinine, un-American and unacceptable.

Wow, that was a rather zealous reaction to the mere suggestion of discussing how to deal with a nasty trend. Regulation in itself does not equal pure evil, look to the US constitution for the proof of that. But it seems that, in the context of discussions about capitalism it suddenly does.(though I'm not completely sure if that's what you were addressing here)

- But I would say it's up to the restaurant to offer a menu item that caters to nutritional balance

That's what we have now and coupled with the nature of commercial advertising the result is the fattest population in the world.So lets move to the next step of determining what we can do to not just blindly accept the status quo and actually improve things... unless you think improvement is impossible.

- or, even better...you saw it coming...PEOPLE can eat less themselves based on information THEY get and decide to stick to as a regimen.

and IF this was actually happenning you would have a point... but it isn't.Ignoring this basic fact about the nature of people seems to lead society to suicide by excess.

- doctors should refuse to treat people

Yeah I'm not sure either of us wants to defend this option. Let me know if you do, and I'll formulate some thoughts.

- but rather than use their influence as a profession to bolster better personal health choices

This can be (and IS) done without resorting to denying citizens' healthcare so it seems a little problematic to be equating the two the way the structure of this sentence does.

- the reality is that they still make money off our vices.

This wouldn't be an issue if there was universal healthcare like in all those countries in the world rated higher than the US in living conditions. But the hipocratic oath and the system in place that attempts to assure adherence to it should contribute to mitigating the greed of the few medical professionals motivated more by greed than other motivations.

Thorndyke Barnhard:But I would say it's up to the restaurant to offer a menu item that caters to nutritional balance

That's what we have now and coupled with the nature of commercial advertising the result is the fattest population in the world.

You're not going to change my mind that it's ultimately a person's own choice to make good eating and health choices.

I would, however, go after advertising. It would have to be a citizens' fight, though, because we both know that even the mega-consumer, mega-capitalist illusions they're selling are protected by free speech. Unless we can drive the point home that it is indeed both deceptive and dangerous.

But I completely support the idea that if someone wants to open a restaurant called "The Hardened Artery," they have a that right and they'll have clientele.

You really cannot regulate personal responsibility. You can, however, get off your ass and promote enough awareness that people can change their behaviors using their own powers of decision.

- You're not going to change my mind that it's ultimately a person's own choice to make good eating and health choices.

Maybe just like we shouldn't allow NutraSweet to sell us some cancerous new sweetner we shoud also not allow folks in the nutrition/restaurant biz to sell us food that's clearly junk. Is that SO out of line?

-Unless we can drive the point home that it is indeed both deceptive and dangerous.

This is the primary issue that troubles me in all this. There is a mountain of evidence from psychological studies to communications theories that point out the reality of media influence over personal choice yet there is nothing beholding corporations to wield that power responsibly.

Thorndyke Barnhard:Maybe just like we shouldn't allow NutraSweet to sell us some cancerous new sweetner we shoud also not allow folks in the nutrition/restaurant biz to sell us food that's clearly junk.

I'd be up for regulating certain components of foods, but even after you "require" that McDonald's use Certified Angus Beef, there's going to be someone who thinks I shouldn't be allowed to eat a hamburger for "my own good." If it's my wife saying that, the issue is subject to negotiation, but where does your regulation end? That all citizens must not, under penalty of law, enjoy anything fried, especially if there's meat involved. You want to see a revolution, pass that law.

Awareness is slow. Right now, there are so many Americans who don't even care to exercise. That's worse to me, letting yourself go bad like that. At least you've got a sporting chance to work some of that food off with exercise.

But getting everyone to eat a nice balanced diet without the vices? Good luck. But I would at least concede that some of the basic things we use to cook and prepare our food need to be made safer, things like transfat, which I'm sure none of us can recognize, let alone miss.

As Secretary of Labor, Chao initiated a number of significant reforms. The Department of Labor completed regulations that raised the minimum salary for automatic overtime eligibility from $8,060 to $22,100, while exempting most white-collar workers earning more than $100,000.

Am I reading this correctly?wowsers!/off to make 100,000.01 and buying white collars!

I'm not actually proposing regulating people, I'm proposing regulating businesses that, because of their greater position of power in the consumer/business relationship, have a greater responsibillity.

Here in Canada, Irwin Toy Inc. v. Quebec was a supreme court case which determined that it was reasonable and constitutional to prevent corporations advertising to children under 13 years of age based partly on the social psychological evidence that children are particularly susceptibe to the influences of advertisers. This is where I think any regulation should start. With the advertisers. It should somehow be recognized that they have great power over people's minds. Hard sell advertising and bombardment hocking junk as necessary and good and appeals to identity and such are deceptive, exagerated and often just plain unethical. There must be some way to deal with it.

Hard sell advertising and bombardment hocking junk as necessary and good and appeals to identity and such are deceptive, exagerated and often just plain unethical.

Outright lying should not be allowed, I agree. But duping suckers into buying stuff they don't need is just plain old capitalism at its best.

All joking aside though I agree marketing to kids in some respects is manipulative and unethical, particularly the unhealthy foods hawked to kids during children's programming. Whatever happens, any state regulation of advertising to children is to an extent government parenting, and IMHO the debate is how much we should let the government assume this position.

In the States, I think the line is currently drawn as it should be. That is, advertising dangerously unhealthy, unsafe food or toys or false or overly manipulative advertising (to children). Beyond that I think it's up to parents to either tell their kids why they don't need the newest toys, or spoil them rotten, or simply not let them watch the TV.

As for you and me, I don't know. To a certain extent I think the responsibility should be on the individual. What worries me more than manipulative advertising is the FDA bureaucrats and SNE (Society for Nutrition Education) brass getting into bed with the big food companies. Then the manipulation comes not through advertising but through official or respected channels that people actually trust. Like in reducing the standards for "organic" food, or allowing Coca Cola to stick its logo in nutritional educational material.

TiVo is making the advertisers get creative. A little overly creative.

Where is the line drawn? Is communicating that the pear juice, thyme and qumquats in my shampoo will make my hair like Julia Roberts' enough of a lie? Or that my spray on deo will get all the hot chicks to throw themselves at me?It seems right now it is drawn at an arbitrarily lax point and could stand to be drawn somewhere more faithful to the definition of the term deceptive.

- What worries me more than manipulative advertising is the FDA bureaucrats and SNE (Society for Nutrition Education) brass getting into bed with the big food companies.

This is already happenning and will continue to happen as long as we permit lobbyists to use money power to sway government. The NutraSweet example I mentionned above is an apt one that demonstrates the inherent conflict of interest engendered by conflating the business world with government. The relationship and boundaries between governemnt ans business need to be clearly defined and asserted. We have no problem asserting the authgoritative relationship between government and individual citizens, the same needs to be done between governemnt and business.

Thorndyke Barnhard:Is communicating that the pear juice, thyme and qumquats in my shampoo will make my hair like Julia Roberts' enough of a lie? Or that my spray on deo will get all the hot chicks to throw themselves at me?

Those aren't lies. That's marketing, aka free speech.

If the shampoo said it would turn my hair red and it turned it green, or not any color at all, then that's actionable because they're either being negligent or lying.

If someone believes that a deodorant will make chicks like them more, then this person needs more than government restrictions to protect them, because unfortunately they seem to be a few bricks short of a load, if you catch my drift...

Phew! I was beginning to think I had single handedly killed this forum...

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is the increasingly apparent deep cultural and societal effects of lifestyle/identity-related advertising. Statistics show that the bombardment does infact seem to overide personal choice by manipulating people into making certain choices for non-rational reasons. We defend freedom of speech within a greater value for freedom of choice. That's wat makes this issue tricky for me. It's like chain letters that bully certain kinds of people into playing along by saying that they will have bad luck if they don't. These are forbidden for very rational reasons and I think those same reasons apply with regard to certain marketting techniques.

No, I'm pretty sure he meant progressive. It's only the fanatical righties that are so paranoid about their ideology that they perceive anything not fundamentally right wing as "UTTERLY-SOCIALIST-BIG-GOVERNMENT-OMG!!ONE"!

There are middle grounds, there is a place for government, and there is also a a place for capitalism and for ensuring the benefits of a free market economy while understanding and mitigating the nastier side effects that the free market is ill equipped to handle such as corruption and greed.

You might be interested in reading some Leo Groarke for a better elaboration on the concept of embraced yet mitigated capitalism, he basically likens it to pruning a fruit bearing tree.

I'm just here to say.. it's retarded that Fark is moving the gun control debate off the front page.

If I wanted to have a heavily moderated environment, I'd start political fights over at moveon.org or something. I'm just saying, for the record, that it shows a shocking lack of respect for the collective intelligence of Farkers.

So kids, gun control. Here's what the deal is. If you can tell me that the shooter at VT got his gun illegally, then by God you might have a point about laws that weren't passed or concealed carry for licensed students. Otherwise, if the gun was obtained legally, ball's in the gun control crazies court, and we can all go home.

for the people upset that fark moved the topic away... get over it. its disrespectful...

is against the idea of fark being for open discussion? maybe... but i can't say i blame them... out of respect of the families that are still trying to figure out what is going on, you can save your comments.

antisocialite: agreed. Up here in Canada this (almost) never happens. (I think there was one shooting once, somewhere in Alberta, 2 people got killed if I remember correctly. The gun came from the dad's gun collection.)

Proactive law enforcement is poisonous to freedom, it's not right to take guns away from people who haven't broken any laws, how wise is it to whip criminals out of thin air with the flourish of a pen, what use is there in closing the barn door after the horse's run off, every day oppression vs. remote possibility of tragedy and so on, etc., blah blah blah

WiteBuddha:is against the idea of fark being for open discussion? maybe... but i can't say i blame them... out of respect of the families that are still trying to figure out what is going on, you can save your comments.

The families have better things to do than read Fark comment threads. Especially if they're looking for consolation.